No. 22-6348
Douglas James Schneider v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: appellate-review court-of-appeals criminal-procedure federal-rules-of-criminal-procedure plain-error procedural-violation rule-11 substantial-rights waiver
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration Patent
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration Patent
Latest Conference:
2023-02-17
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the court of appeals erred in holding the failure to object to the violation of Rule 11(c)(1) provides dispositive evidence that the violation did not affect a defendant's substantial rights under the plain error standard
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the court of appeals erred in holding the failure to object to the violation of Rule 11(c)(1) provides dispositive evidence that the violation did not affect a defendant’s substantial rights under the plain error standard. i
Docket Entries
2023-02-21
Petition DENIED.
2023-01-12
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/17/2023.
2023-01-09
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2022-12-16
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 19, 2023)
Attorneys
Douglas James Schneider
Drew J. Hushka — Vogel Law Firm, Petitioner
Drew J. Hushka — Vogel Law Firm, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent